Nasreen et al v. Canyon Properties, Inc. et al

Filing 69

ORDER DISMISSING CASE and finding as moot 62 Motion for Settlement; granting [66, 68] Motion for Settlement. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, the Court finds that the parties' settlement agreements, DE [66, 68], are fair and reasonable. As such, the joint motions for approval are granted, and this case is hereby closed. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke on 4/5/2017. (Cea, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------x
ABIDA NASREEN and KHURRAM SHAHZAD, on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
employees,
-against-

Plaintiffs,

ORDER
16-CV-2233 (SIL)

CANYON
PROPERTIES,
INC.,
CANYON
PROPERTIES, LLC, CANYON PROPERTIES II,
LLC, HO 110 INC., LBBC DONUTS LLC, RONALD
PORTNOY, CANYON DONUTS BELLMORE, INC.,
CANYON DONUTS PLAINVIEW, INC., CANYON
DONUTS SEAFORD, INC., JOHN DOE III-X,
members
of
Defendant
Limited
Liability
Corporations, JOHN DOE XI-XX, entities that
control, own, or are otherwise affiliated with
Defendant Corporations and/or Limited Liability
Corporations, JOHN DOE I and JOHN DOE II,
individual shareholders of Defendant entities who
are one of the ten largest shareholders and/or who
took an active role in managing employees,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------x
LOCKE, Magistrate Judge:
In December 2016, the parties submitted two joint motions seeking approval
of two settlement agreements in this Fair Labor Standards Act action. See Docket
Entry (“DE”) [57, 58]. The first settlement agreement is between Plaintiffs Abida
Nasreen and Khurram Shahzad (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Canyon Properties,
LLC, Ronald Portnoy, Canyon Donuts Bellmore, Inc., Canyon Donuts Plainview, Inc.,
and Canyon Donuts Seaford, Inc. (collectively “Canyon Defendants,” with the
settlement agreement between the parties referred to as the “Canyon Settlement
Agreement”). See DE [57]. The second settlement agreement is between Plaintiffs

and Defendant HO 110 Inc. (the “HO 110 Settlement Agreement”). See DE [58]. At
a January 30, 2017 hearing, the Court denied both motions without prejudice to
renew as they contained overbroad release provisions in violation of the Second
Circuit opinion in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015),
and because the parties did not submit documentation substantiating their request
for attorneys’ fees. See DE [60]. Thereafter, the parties submitted a revised Canyon
Settlement Agreement and HO 110 Settlement Agreement which contained
permissible release provisions consistent with this Court’s directive, and attached a
summary of the work performed by Plaintiffs’ counsel. See DE [62, 63]. However,
neither the revised Canyon Settlement Agreement nor the revised HO 110
Settlement Agreement was signed by any party. Id. As such, the Court again denied
the renewed motions for approval of the settlement agreements with leave to
resubmit, and directed the parties to submit fully executed agreements for the Court’s
review. See Electronic Order dated 2/7/2017.
On March 13, 2017, the parties filed a second revised Canyon Settlement
Agreement. See DE [64]. Although the agreement was signed by both Plaintiffs, the
only signature for any of the Defendants was by Ronald Portnoy on behalf of “Canyon
Donuts,” which is not a named party in this matter. See id. As such, the Court again
denied with leave to renew the motion for approval, instructing the parties to file a
fully executed Canyon Settlement Agreement that includes the signature of all
Canyon Defendants. See Electronic Order dated 3/24/2017. On April 3, 2017, the
parties jointly filed a motion for settlement approval of the third revised Canyon

2

Settlement Agreement, which was fully executed. See DE [68]. Regarding the HO
110 Settlement Agreement, the parties submitted a fully signed second revised
agreement on March 21, 2017. See DE [66].
Having reviewed the third revised Canyon Settlement Agreement and second
revised HO 110 Settlement Agreement, the Court finds that their terms are fair and
reasonable. See Cheeks, 796 F.3d 199; Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d
332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (requiring that a district court scrutinize an FLSA
settlement agreement to determine that it is fair and reasonable). As such, the joint
motions for approval are granted, and this case is hereby closed.

Dated:

Central Islip, New York
April 5, 2017

SO ORDERED
s/ Steven I. Locke
STEVEN I. LOCKE
United States Magistrate Judge

3